The musings of one Andrew Langer - defender of liberty, passionate protector of individual rights, foodie. (Note: Said Musings of Andrew Langer are his own, and the views represented herein are likewise his views, and not the views of any other people, entities, foodstuffs, etc [unless otherwise specifically and explicitly noted].)

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Why I Love Listening to Pacifica...

Those of you who know me know that I grew up in New York and when I was fifteen, I started attending the Fieldston School, the high school of the Society for Ethical Culture in New York. I'll reserve a discussion of ethical humanism for another time, suffice it to say that it's an ultra-progressive, ultra-statist philosophy - and while I was still formulating my pro-individual rights, small government views, I was definitely a heck of a lot more hawkish than my classmates. Let me put it to you this way: while we were being taught that the soviet flavor of socialism was still a viable societal enterprise, I knew that not only was it an evil force at work on this planet, but that I wanted to fight it.

But one of the things that I did learn while at Fieldston was that in order to make progress on a problem, you need hear as many sides to that problem as possible (this, of course, leads to meaningful dialogue. Dialogue, in turn, leads to understanding. And that, in turn, leads to solutions. At least in theory. I believe that dialogue is important - review many of my old posts on Usenet and you'll see [I ought to post some of those here...] - but sometimes there's simply no common ground to be found.).

What's more - it can be highly entertaining to hear those views that widely diverge from your own.

So, I've taken to listening to Pacifica Radio on WPFW in DC (89.3 FM) while I'm driving in in the mornings - especially "Community Comment". For the uninitiated, Pacifica makes NPR look like Limbaugh's EIB Network. Community Comment is a call-in show - and Ron Pinchback takes _ANY_ calls (even my own). They are AWESOME! You get all sorts of folks - from the kinda nutty local activists to the full-blown German-accented from-the-trenches elderly socialist (I'm serious here - this guy's called in a couple of times since I've listened to talk about the class struggle in light of Katrina).

Yesterday morning I'm listening, and they're talking about the Millions More Movement March - the successor to the decade-ago Million Man March - and what people hope it will accomplish. Well, first off we get a guy who calls in to say that while he isn't advocating for violence, that when the millions of people arrive in DC they ought to constitute a private army and do something revolutionary!!!

Then, another guy calls in to say that what they ought to be talking about is crime - and that communities ought to become crime fighters, to band together to fight crime in their neighborhoods and FORGET THE POLICE!!!

Armed insurrection and vigilante-ism. If I hadn't immediately heard a call afterwards bashing the administration's record on race relations, I would've thought it was 10 years ago and I was listening to some sort of Ted Nugent pro-militia show on the AM dial.

Yes, there are real gems - which is why I do listen. I didn't realize, for instance, that the Red Cross gets reiumbursed by the Federal Government for their disaster relief work, which really offends me (especially when they: a) raise a billion bucks on Katrina relief and can't seem to spend it efficiently; and b) carp about not getting enough to send relief abroad). Found that out a few weeks ago. Also got some great ideas about the exacerbation of post-Katrina problems due to organizational, bureaucratic, and regulatory red tape. You gotta love it when a super-progressive outlet does a story and one can come to the conclusion that union recalcitrance was preventing hurricaine victims from getting their much-needed relief.

So, tune in. Call in if you're so inclined. If you can handle a little frustration and aggravation, you're gonna love it!

- Andrew Langer

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would, respectfully, recommend that you visit the American Ethical Union's website at www.aeu.org and read the "8 commitments of ethical humanism". I think you will find, that there is nothing in there that supports the notion of a socialist order. It is possible to be a capitalist and a humanist at the same time. As a former member of the Society and a former Fieldstonite I was insulted by your description of Ethical Humanism and disappointed in your oversimplification of it's message. You're capable of better than that.

October 15, 2005 11:52 AM

 
Blogger The leftist southpaw said...

"I'm curious- do you even remember when it was you first sold out?"- Rudy Baylor, "The Rainmaker"

The government reimburses the Red Cross, huh? Well, god forbid the federal government reimburse someone for doing the job that the federal government should, but can't. If the Republicans are the party of morality, why don't they start by reading Leviticus? "You shall not stand by idly while your neighbor bleeds."

October 16, 2005 3:21 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

A former classmate of mine? Well, thank you for reading the blog, first of all!

I'm sorry you found the description insulting - it really wasn't meant that way. In fact, I tried to be careful in making sure that it wasn't denigrating. It was oversimplistic (the piece wasn't about Fieldston, it was about Pacifica), but I'm sure you'll agree that Fieldston was founded on progressive ideals: that the children of working men ought to have education of the same quality of children of the wealthy. The community service requirement, the emphasis on learning in a competition-free environment, the comprehensive arts program - all hallmarks of a progressive education program.

As to the statism issue - statism is simply a philosophy that promotes state (ie "government") based solutions over individual or market-based solutions to public policy concerns.

I did check out the AEU page, but I think your "8 Commitments" request isn't really apt. You can discuss what those commitments are without implicating public policy philosophy at all.

On the other hand, you can look at other sections of the AEU website (like the Katrina Reaction) and get a sense of where the Union stands on things, political philosophy wise. Like the dissatisfaction with the federal response to Katrina, clearly from a statist perspective (the limited government perspective would be that the federal government performed precisely as a big-government entity would have been expected to), as well as a progressive one.

Again, this is not a denigration. This is a value-neutral classification.

And in backing up what I said about Fieldston and Soviet Socialism - I don't know if you took the comparitive governments class, but I did. Still have the book, "How the Soviet Union is Governed", which served as the basis for our discussion of the USSR. Very much a pro-soviet tome.

Understand, I treasure my experiences at Fieldston. I value what I learned there, and believe wholeheartedly in the worthiness of a philosophy that is ethics base. I wasn't indicting ethical humanism or Fieldston - hardly. And I hope I wasn't confusing the two, either: while Fieldston is the ECS' high school, it isn't all that ethical humanism is all about.

What's more - I treasure the friendships I made there, especially the diversity of opinions to be found. That's why I continue to seek out new friendships with folks who remind me of the people I went to high school with.

So with that - mystery guest, I hope you introduce yourself. It'd be much more fun to know who you are.

Thanks again for your comments. I'm sorry you found the post insulting. It wasn't meant to be that way.

- Andrew Langer

October 16, 2005 3:48 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

I find something patently dishonest in a charitable organization soliciting donations for a response to something when they are going to get reimbursed for it. I find it reprehensible that they would also get reimbursed for what has been a poor response. There's also something hypocritical for an organization to receive nearly a billion dollars in contributions (when they are going to get reimbursed) and then claim to come up short for relief for other disasters in far-flung parts of the world (like Pakistan).

As to the issue of unfeeling Republicans, I defy you to find an example of "Republicans" as a group or a party, standing idly by after Katrina. What's more, your condemnation of Republicans in this instance is laughable, considering the lack of action on the part of the state and local governments, which are Democrat organs (not to mention the role of Democrat-supported policies in exacerbating Katrina's results).

BTW, Southpaw - I've pretty much figured out who you are. Your particular flavor of arrogrant, holier-than-thou vitriol made it fairly obvious from the first post you made here. It fairly reeks of the same desperate attempts to show yourself as somehow superior that you've been trying to do since we were kids.

If you want to keep posting pseudonymously, that's your business. But just keep in mind that you're not fooling me. I know who it is who's lamely trying to call me a "sell out" (which was a fairly idiotic non-sequitur that underscored that my initial surmization as to who you are was accurate). What it does show is that you don't have the stones to say it to my face without hiding behind a mask.

Just who have I sold out to, Southpaw?

October 16, 2005 4:11 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

"state and local governements"... by which I meant, the State of Louisiana and the New Orleans city governments.

October 16, 2005 4:13 PM

 
Blogger The leftist southpaw said...

Name: Andrew Kessler
Age: 34
Occupation: Non-profit lobbyist
Political party: Democrat
Hobbies: Golf, cooking, soccer, puzzles
Can't understand about Langer: Where he gets off calling someone elses attitude "holier-than-thou"
Size of my stones: Pretty f****** big

feel free to visit www.southpawspot.blogspot.com

your comments are always welcome

October 23, 2005 8:03 AM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

To all who asked, "who is this Leftist Southpaw?" (sometimes adding an appropriate epithet which need not be repeated here), I was absolutely right in my prediction, wasn't I? (I was also right in my guess as to who 'anonymous' is. That person identified him/herself to me in e-mail, and I will respect that person's wishes as to remaining unknown.)

But onto Andrew Kessler... Where do I get off? First of all, Kess, my playing field, my rules. Ilena Rosenthal learned that lesson the hard way and skipped right back out. You came here, copped an attitude, and by virtue of my being the Blogger-in-Chief on the Liberty Blog, I'm going to call you on it.

Second, your comments here and before are what I refer to when talk about your "holier than thou" attitude. Your hypocritical rants on the Woodlands Yahoo group, your comments to me personally, your statements here all have an air of "my crap don't stink".

(Such as insinuating that I have sold out. Still no substantiation or explanation for that, either. I've sold out to whom or to what, exactly?)

I note, also, that you seized on the "holier than thou" comment. Not the "arrogant" part of it. Recognize that as a part of your character, do ya? Other people commented on that, perhaps?

Also, no comments made regarding anything I said regarding the Red Cross, their reimbursement, the role of Democrats, the supposed idleness of Republicans or anything else of substance that I have discussed in response. That says a great deal.

I dunno, Kess. I post a quote from Churchill calling for solidarity, not even that - I post a _LINK_ to a blog post with a quote from Churchill, and I get this complete venting of unbridled rage - the vented spleen of someone who's clearly had something bottled up for some time.

I'm not sure why _I've_ become the focus of your anger. I've got theories, but nothing certain. Nothing, certainly, that I'm going to share here. I tried offering you my take on why I believe its important for old acquaintances to remain cordial, even when their political philosophies diverge - you misunderstood what I was saying. At that point I didn't believe it was worth any more of my time to disabuse you of that misunderstanding.

So, I let it go. Then you continued to prod, both here and with your comments to the Woodlands group regarding Tom Delay. You may have been mistaken about posting those comments (and you'll note that I said _NOTHING_ - even though you'd gone quite a few steps further than what I'd done in July), but you certainly made an affirmative choice by using that opportunity to take _another_ swipe at me.

I let that go, too.

And yet you still need to ask where do _I_ get off?

Oh, and Kess? Yeah, you sure do have stones. It takes big f---ing stones to reveal your identity once someone tells you that they've already figured out who you are. Sure. (wink!)

October 25, 2005 4:30 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

Oh, and one last thing - I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation that somehow comments like yours aren't welcome on my blog, or that anonymous or pseudonymous posts aren't welcome. Both are. Anyone is welcome to comment about anything they want - and as I have more than amply demonstrated both here and in my many years of writing on Usenet, I'm happy to engage in polite and respectful dialogue.

Provided, of course, that I am accorded some measure of politeness as well. As was my policy on Usenet, I treat everyone respectfully at the outset. It's only after someone tries to draw blood (and does so repeatedly) that I change change course.

I raise the issue of anonymous and pseudonymous posts simply as a caution to the uninitiated who might be reading: in my experience in writing on the internet (about 8 years now, if my math is correct), one needs to be cautious about taking anonymous or pseudonymous writings at face value.

Oh, and if I were to go over to your blog, to read _and_ to comment, I'd do so under my own name at the outset, thank you very much. What's more, I wouldn't go over and make unsubstantiated insinuations.

October 25, 2005 5:47 PM

 
Blogger Ilena Rose said...

Just heard that Andy was hallucinating about me again:

Spaketh Andy:

>Ilena Rosenthal learned that lesson the hard way and skipped right back out.

LOL ... far from it, child.

No Andy ... I learned nothing from defending myself here other than your ego has no boundaries nor your does your ChickenHawk Neoconism fool anyone but the other fools/flacks.

I stopped replying to your inane posts because you have basically zippppo audience and is not worth my time.

For years of Andy's attacks against me, while a member of the Quackwatch RagTag Posse, please visit:

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/LangerVsIlena.html and/or

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/AEI-PNAC.htm

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SBIPrivateClub.htm

October 27, 2005 8:38 PM

 
Blogger The leftist southpaw said...

"I'm not sure why _I've_ become the focus of your anger. I've got theories, but nothing certain. Nothing, certainly, that I'm going to share here."

Please share, publicly or privately. You take such pride in your fortune-telling abilities.

Apologies if you thought I was trying to hide my identity earlier. I thought I was making it pretty clear who I was via my alias.

And who is this Ilena Rosenthal you refer to, who keeps posting on your site? It would appear the two of you have quite a past!

I keep fighting the urge to post here, but it's so much fun watching you blow up via blog!

I checked out cajun tiger's blog. Do you share his views comparing a woman who murders her chilld to one who opts for an abortion? Just curious where you stand on the issue.

October 29, 2005 11:01 AM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

See my response in the main blog to the Leftist Southpaw.

October 30, 2005 4:48 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

Ilena Rose said...
"Just heard that Andy was hallucinating about me again:"

Really - who'd you hear that from?

Spaketh Andy:

>>Ilena Rosenthal learned that >>lesson the hard way and skipped >>right back out.

>LOL ... far from it, child.

Funny, simply haven't seen hide nor hair of you on this blog since you realized that folks simply weren't going to take someone with your record seriously.

>>I stopped replying to your inane >>posts because you have basically >>zippppo audience and is not >>worth my time.

Funny, because you have no way of measuring who's reading my blog, Ms. Rosenthal.

No, what's more accurate is that you:

a) know that people who do read this blog can smell your brand of bullshit from miles away (all the way from Costa Rica to the United States, in fact) and have no compunction against calling you on it;

b) recognized that you're dealing with a community that can spot someone who doesn't know jack about what she's talking about from a similar distance and also have no compunction against calling you on it; and

c) don't have the (albeit small) chorus of mindless harpies here willing to spring into action to deflect attention away from the deficiencies of their leader when she is so exposed.

Simply put, Ms. Rosenthal, this blog deals with issues that interest folks who both want to and know how to have meaningful discussions of those issues. They're not interested in the rantings of someone who has no interest in substance.

October 30, 2005 5:02 PM

 
Blogger Andrew Langer said...

Ilena Rose said...
"Just heard that Andy was hallucinating about me again:"

Really - who'd you hear that from?

Spaketh Andy:

>>Ilena Rosenthal learned that >>lesson the hard way and skipped >>right back out.

>LOL ... far from it, child.

Funny, simply haven't seen hide nor hair of you on this blog since you realized that folks simply weren't going to take someone with your record seriously.

>>I stopped replying to your inane >>posts because you have basically >>zippppo audience and is not >>worth my time.

Funny, because you have no way of measuring who's reading my blog, Ms. Rosenthal.

No, what's more accurate is that you:

a) know that people who do read this blog can smell your brand of bullshit from miles away (all the way from Costa Rica to the United States, in fact) and have no compunction against calling you on it;

b) recognized that you're dealing with a community that can spot someone who doesn't know jack about what she's talking about from a similar distance and also have no compunction against calling you on it; and

c) don't have the (albeit small) chorus of mindless harpies here willing to spring into action to deflect attention away from the deficiencies of their leader when she is so exposed.

Simply put, Ms. Rosenthal, this blog deals with issues that interest folks who both want to and know how to have meaningful discussions of those issues. They're not interested in the rantings of someone who has no interest in substance.

October 30, 2005 5:02 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home